NationStates Jolt Archive

As an Australian I don't see how peak oil will be disasterous for us. Oil prices will increase but at the same time we will economize and use less. Australia uses no oil for grid electrical production. Nor do we use oil for heating. Coal can gradually be substituted for oil in the production of fertilizer and chemical feedstocks. As oil prices increase people will buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars and hybrids. Soon Japanese companies will start selling "plug in" hybrids and all electric cars. We can produce ethanol from sugar cane to substitute for a small amount of the worlds petroleum production and liquified coal could be used as well. (Although I worry about the environmental effects of liquified coal and using oil shale and oil sands.)

People who own fuel guzzelers will be hurt but currently Australians spend less than $3 U.S. a day per person on oil for ALL purposes including mining, fertilizer and plastic. If the price of oil triples over the next 15 years while we gradually reduce our consumption by half we will end up paying maybe $4.50 a day on oil. Annoying but not a disaster.

I can understand Americans with their larger cars and oil heated homes being more concerned, but I don't think they will be that much worse off than Australians.

Get up a few of those Solar Towers and you won't need oil outside of plastic and polymer production. :)

Demand is rising as supply is falling. People want more, not less. So price will go up exponentially, until we are simply forced to economize due to shortage(available, not nessecairly the wells being completely dry). Its a bit between a disaster and a pain. We will survive, but it will be a recession in major economies.

Buying fuel efficient things is great. However, the supply will still dwindle, and demand will still rise, especially as nations like china and india get more fuel hungry. Gas will eventually be 7+ dollars a gallon at average, and it will become much less viable to drive everywhere. Even with fuel efficient cars, etc, prices will still go up total.

I will continue to argue that more and more nuclear plants are what we need. They will provide us with a great deal of electricity for decades to come, heavily offsetting the recession until we find a better way to create energy.

Get up a few of those Solar Towers and you won't need oil outside of plastic and polymer production. :)

Even then, oil converted from garbage and animal parts would suffice. It's good enough for plastics and the such, but not quite so much for fuel.

But, oil wasn't really good as a fuel source to begin with.

If you think that fuel is the only thing we use oil for, you are sadly mistaken. I have the sneaking suspicion you're using oil products right now (your computer).

Even then, oil converted from garbage and animal parts would suffice. It's good enough for plastics and the such, but not quite so much for fuel.

But, oil wasn't really good as a fuel source to begin with.

Yep the TDP plants, though we can liquify it from coal now to!
America will be find with the cut, its the oil tycoons that keep prices high with inefficency on cars.

Gas will eventually be 7+ dollars a gallon at average,

It already is that much or more in a lot of countries, but Europe seems to handle it okay.

It already is that much or more in a lot of countries, but Europe seems to handle it okay.

Actually is $3-5. Netherlands being close to $6 I think a few months back.

Even then, oil converted from garbage and animal parts would suffice. It's good enough for plastics and the such, but not quite so much for fuel.

But, oil wasn't really good as a fuel source to begin with.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT?

Oil is the absolute most efficent energy source we've come up with to date, in terms of the amount of energy per amount. Consider that in one gallon of oil--well okay, it's converted, but that's not the point--you can push an SUV ten miles. Can you imagine how long and how much energy you'd have to expend to do that?

Fact is, we use it for everything because there's nothing truly better that's been economical to this point. And meh. I'll shut up and let PyschoticDan and/or Tactical Grace do the rest of the talking. They've researched this a lot better than I have.

Nuclear. ^-^
Oil is very inefficent with that and other renewable resources.
Solar Tower, Solar power, hydroelectric....etc

Nuclear. ^-^
Oil is very inefficent with that and other renewable resources.
Solar Tower, Solar power, hydroelectric....etc
Well...no, no, I said I'd let PD and TG take it up, and I will. Don't snatch me into continuing an argument I'll lose due to ineptness. PLEASE! DON'T DO IT! I CAN'T TAKE ANOTHER LOST ARGUMENT!

...

Yes I'm tired. I should probably head to bed.

Demand is rising as supply is falling. People want more, not less. So price will go up exponentially, until we are simply forced to economize due to shortage

I don't see how peak oil would cause oil prices to go up exponentially. Peak oil means production may decline by 2-3% a year. We've had disruptions in oil supply of much greater than 2% without exponential price increases. Perhaps war or something could cause that, but not peak oil.

Nuclear. ^-^
Oil is very inefficent with that and other renewable resources.
Solar Tower, Solar power, hydroelectric....etc

Aye, I don't understand why we still use oil all that much.

Actually is $3-5. Netherlands being close to $6 I think a few months back.
Ahh, thank you. I just read that it was much higher in Germany. I am surprised to hear that it is so low in the Netherlands though. Have they changed their petrol taxes?

If you think that fuel is the only thing we use oil for, you are sadly mistaken. I have the sneaking suspicion you're using oil products right now (your computer).

Yep, that's right. Maybe 500 grams of plastic. With an oil cost of maybe 50 cents. Which would be about 0.05% of the cost of my laptop. So if the price of oil increased 10 times I'd have to pay an extra $5 for my laptop. Or since we would substitute coal or something else for chemical feedstocks before we got to 10 times current oil prices, perhaps I'd have to pay an extra $2.50. Like I said, annoying but not a disaster.

Yep, that's right. Maybe 500 grams of plastic. With an oil cost of maybe 50 cents. Which would be about 0.05% of the cost of my laptop. So if the price of oil increased 10 times I'd have to pay an extra $5 for my laptop. Or since we would substitute coal or something else for chemical feedstocks before we got to 10 times current oil prices, perhaps I'd have to pay an extra $2.50. Like I said, annoying but not a disaster.The oil prices increasing wouldn't be the big problem. The prices would merely be a reflection of the fact that there won't really be enough to go around. Packaging needs to be reduced quite a bit. It's not just computers, its clothing, food packaging, etc. Petroleum products are extremely vital to a lot more than just transportation.

Solar power won't work, wind power won't work, neither will getting oil from plants and decaying matter. Period. Do you realize the absolutely gargantuan amounts of land that would be needed to grow enough plants for biodiesel, solar panels, and windmills? Do you not realize how much decaying garbage, and how long it would take, to satisfy our consumption rates?

Hell, even nuclear energy won't cut it in the long term. Uranium is a limited resource, just like everything else. It takes a very long time, and incredible amounts of money to build new reactors, and uranium gets used up. It's not possible to supply our energy demands with nuclear power.


Oil is the best (although running out....) source of energy on this planet. The energy return on energy invested (EROEI) for oil is extremely high. Every alternative to oil that we have come up with so far will never be even almost as good as oil. Solar panels require more energy to construct than they produce once operational, hydrogen is very difficult to obtain (and transport, as opposed to oil and its derivatives), there isn't enough arable land to grow enough of the proper crops for biodiesel, wind power is far too unreliable (same goes for solar power), and etc for everything else.

It's not possible. Nearly everything we have wouldn't be possible without oil, unless you want to go back to wooden horsedrawn carriages and getting your heating/lighting oil from whales and the like.


And no, tar sands won't cut it, either. It's a rather difficult task to extract the oil for use.


Nuclear fission would be about the only "real" help, but obviously we're a long, long way from a successful, commercially viable results. And it would only help in the energy -- electricity production -- side of things. We'd still need the immense amount of resources to build those reactors as well.


Our lifestyle is much too wasteful to be able to support ourselves on the current alternatives.

Petroleum products are extremely vital to a lot more than just transportation.

This is true. But only 4% of petroleum production goes into plastic. Australians spend about 12 cents a day per person on plastic. If the price of plastic increased 5 times we'd adapt. I'm not saying that there wouldn't be people hurt by this, that there wouldn't be people losing jobs at the excessive plastic packageing company, but most of us probably wouldn't notice.

It would be an incredibly easy transition from fossil fuels to a sustainable source. The diesal engine was initially created to run on peanut oil. The patent, however was bought by (surprise) an oil company and switched over to what it is today.

We subsidise corn and other oil-rich crops when they could sustain themselves through the production of a clean burning renewable fuel.

Yep, that's right. Maybe 500 grams of plastic. With an oil cost of maybe 50 cents. Which would be about 0.05% of the cost of my laptop. So if the price of oil increased 10 times I'd have to pay an extra $5 for my laptop. Or since we would substitute coal or something else for chemical feedstocks before we got to 10 times current oil prices, perhaps I'd have to pay an extra $2.50. Like I said, annoying but not a disaster.


Because plastic is the only thing a computer that requires oil for production. None of the silicon, solder, capactors, resistors, ICs, rubber wire insulators, or anything metal requires any oil at all, right?

Oh, woops, wrong. Everything in a computer goes through a manufacturing process that requires oil. Not just the plastic casing.

If the price of oil increased 10 times, you'll be paying an arm, leg, half of the other leg, part of your other arm, both eyeballs, and maybe even an ear, for that machine. It won't be some petty little extra $2.50 or $5.

It would be an incredibly easy transition from fossil fuels to a sustainable source. The diesal engine was initially created to run on peanut oil. The patent, however was bought by (surprise) an oil company and switched over to what it is today.

We subsidise corn and other oil-rich crops when they could sustain themselves through the production of a clean burning renewable fuel.

Genius.

wind power won't workUmm, some of the power my laptop is running off comes from wind. Currently they are building more and more wind generators in the desert near hear. Aparently it does work. Even without subsidies wind power is now competitive in many places (windy places) with thermal power.

Solar power won't work

Umm, in Australia we have towns that are run off solar power. Admittedly small towns, but towns none the less. Sure it is currently more expensive than coal, but it does work.

Solar panels require more energy to construct than they produce once operational

Well I guess we'd need a wind powered solar panel factory then. Which I suppose isn't that odd. I saw a solar power petrol station in Japan. But seriously if this were true then they would be too expensive for anyone to install. Therefore no would will install them. Probelm solved. But solar hot water systems can pay for themselves in under seven years. All depends on your location and hot water use.

Nearly everything we have wouldn't be possible without oil, unless you want to go back to wooden horsedrawn carriages and getting your heating/lighting oil from whales and the like.

Here we get our heating and lighting from coal and wind power.

Because plastic is the only thing a computer that requires oil for production. None of the silicon, solder, capactors, resistors, ICs, rubber wire insulators, or anything metal requires any oil at all, right?

Oh, woops, wrong. Everything in a computer goes through a manufacturing process that requires oil. Not just the plastic casing.

If the price of oil increased 10 times, you'll be paying an arm, leg, half of the other leg, part of your other arm, both eyeballs, and maybe even an ear, for that machine. It won't be some petty little extra $2.50 or $5.

Okay, GDP of USA 7.75 trillion dollars.

Money spent on oil by U.S.A. per year is about 40 billion dollars at today's prices.

The cost of oil is about 0.5% of total U.S. GDP.

Can you see where I'm going here? Even though oil has a great many applications, it's total cost is very small compared the the total economy.

Even though oil is used in many steps of the production of my laptop, the total cost of oil used is still extremely small. Oil is manybe 1% of the total cost of my laptop. So if oil increases in price ten times and no substitution for it is made then the price of my lap top increases by 10%, not by an arm and a leg.

I just thought I'd point out that some plastics such as polystyrene are already made from coal because it's cheaper.

If you think that fuel is the only thing we use oil for, you are sadly mistaken. I have the sneaking suspicion you're using oil products right now (your computer).
But organic chemistry is hard.

Indeed, I think you need to do a lot more research on this subject, I could spend a lot of my time writing out a reply that includes facts and figures that would make your eyes bulge in fear. But I'm not going to, because even then you'd just fall into denial.
Instead how about this, after your idea of the future is crushed by the horror of the reality of the situation you can come back and tell me how right we peak oilers were about how bad things are going to be.

Just on a sidenote I suggest you do some significant research on how much energy we use, how much comes from solar and other non-fossil fuels and how useful the "alternatives" really are. Perhaps also throw in some economic research so you know the effect on inflation it'll have, if you have done all these things and still cling to your beliefs then I'm afraid you're a lost, doomed cause.

How bad will the Peak Oil period be? Very. Changing the entire economy is going to take a long time and a lot of money. Some countries will be in better position to cope, very poor tropical countries probably won't feel it at all, while rich countries will see their ways of life radically changed.

In the end it's possible that alternative sources of energy will be used, but life will be very different as it is now. Want a new car? Forget it, you probably couldn't afford the fuel anyway. Want to live in a big house in the suburbs? No way, the distances and the costs of maintaining such a house will make it impossible. Do you want tasty pineapples from Hawaii? Good luck! Since bringing them over is extremely expensive they're a rarity. Things won't disappear, but they'll be much more expensive. It could be a good life, though, people could end up living in smallish arcologies of 500 - 1000 people producing most of their own food and getting energy from renewable sources. But forget about vacation in Florida. Unless you live in Florida.

On the other hand, if nanotechnology becomes a reality before then...

Just on a sidenote I suggest you do some significant research on how much energy we use.

Done that. Six litres of oil per day per person plus a few kilos of coal. About thirty kilowatts of power. I could work out that in BTUs but I'd have to look stuff up.

how much comes from solar and other non-fossil fuels

Roughly zilch comes from solar and I'm talking about peak oil, not peak coal.

and how useful the "alternatives" really are.

I mentioned how wind competes with coal here in my state.

Perhaps also throw in some economic research so you know the effect on inflation.

Very roughly, doubling the price of oil should produce a one off increase in inflation in the U.S. by about 0.5%. Of course an overnight doubling of oil price would spark a recession unless it was only temporary.

it'll have, if you have done all these things and still cling to your beliefs then I'm afraid you're a lost, doomed cause.

So if I believe that Peak Oil will be difficult but not a disaster, I'm doomed? But if I believe that peak oil means we aren't all doomed, then I won't be doomed?

Look, if you said we are all doomed do to a combination of war, global warming, short-sighted greed and peak oil, maybe I'd believe you. But I find it hard to believe that just peak oil on its own means we are surely doomed. I think we can work our way around most of the problems, although I am far from sure just how serious those problems will turn out to be.

The cost of oil is about 0.5% of total U.S. GDP.

Can you see where I'm going here? Even though oil has a great many applications, it's total cost is very small compared the the total economy.

Problem #1: Even taking that stat at face value, if oil prices rise by a factor of 5, that's 2.5% US GDP: a significant increase and diversion from the budget.

Problem #2: You do not take into account all of the GDP generated from products that were in turn generated by oil. For instance, all plastics will also go up in price commensurate to the rise in oil, and so on down the supply chain.

-----

Uranium is finite, yes, but it is far less finite than oil. Even if we wastefully fail to use breeder reactors (the technology for them exists and is used in other countries, but not the United States), there are hundreds of years with just currently known easily-accessible deposits of Uranium. Breeder reactors take us to about a millennium even with a fairly pessimistic energy demand projection. And then we can move to Thorium -- the technology to fission Thorium also exists, it's a little harder to get the reaction started, but it's more abundant.

The problem is that Nuclear solves the problem of electricity (so long as people take their heads out of the sand on the issue), but it has more difficulty resolving some of the other uses for oil. Coal can replace some of it, but coal for energy is not exactly a happy option for your lungs and for your radiation exposure (yes, it is significantly worse than Nuclear on that count). I don't really know the plastic-making process for coal. Bio-oils may be viable too, considering that non-burning uses of oil are a lot less, but I don't know for sure.

Solar and Wind are finicky and location bound, and furthermore they decrease in efficiency the more you use them in one area. Plus using too many of them can have negative global environmental impact, believe it or not. Currently solar might even have a slightly negative ROEI (return on energy invested).

Currently, I'm hoping for nanotech to obsolete some of these things. Innovations like graphene and such. We've seen some amazing products out of nanotech, it's just starting -- but I can't guarantee results, especially results on time.

Still, electricity generation and vehicle fuel are the biggest uses of oil today. If we could snap our fingers and move those uses onto something else, the alternative uses of oil could go on unchanged for...quite some time. I'm uncomfortable making a prediction that far into the future without having read a study to back me up.

-----

To the person who said the price rising won't be exponential: there is a difference between a random "noisy" 2% fluctuation in price and a continual decline in supply -- the 2% is permanent, and followed by another 2%, and another, and as demand goes up and supply goes down, the interval between those 2%'s will shorten. It will certainly be an approximate exponential rise in price, until we switch to viable alternatives. If no alternative is found (counting conservation, i.e. not using oil, as an alternative, as well as artificial oil production like biodeisel), then the price will rise until there is absolutely none left. At which point it costs infinity dollars. Which is really expensive, as laptops go.

-----

My position? Many peak-oilers of the "the end is nigh" variety do overstate the situation, as though there were a sudden crash rather than a gradual (albeit exponential) weaning coming. Still, they undeniably have a point. Oil reservoirs won't last forever, and we may or may not have peaked already but if we haven't, it's in the very near future. Thinking that it'll just make your laptop cost $5 more and your gas money cost another $100 per annum is a sign of incredible naivety. Unless you are getting on in years and expect to die soonish. In which case it is irresponsible towards those younger than you.

100 years ago, the US experienced a local peak timber, and as a result the price of wood grew. Alternatives are sometimes used, and responsible forest management and (often irresponsible) imports now pick up the timber slack. About 40 years ago IIRC US had local peak oil. Global peak oil may have passed or, at the most incredibly optimistic, is 15 years away. Probably it's within 5 years, according to what I've seen.

Try not to waste stuff (this goes for all things in life), don't drag your heels about Nuclear and other alternatives, and for god's sake don't tell people who can make a difference that there will be absolutely no problems, and you'll be alright.

Thinking that it'll just make your laptop cost $5 more and your gas money cost another $100 per annum is a sign of incredible naivety.

Interesting post. Personally I think it will make my laptop cost $5 more (because of substitution) and my gas money cost at least $5,000 dollars more a year, if I have a gasoline burning car. Which is why I won't have a an exclusively gasoline burning car. I'll have a hybrid or an electric car.

If oil goes up by ten dollars a barrel a year I'll buy an electric car or hybrid when my current economical car starts wearing out. If oil goes up by twenty dollars a barrel a year I'll have to buy a new car sooner, which means I've got a dead loss on my old car. D'oh!

Problem #1: Even taking that stat at face value, if oil prices rise by a factor of 5, that's 2.5% US GDP: a significant increase and diversion from the budget.

Problem #2: You do not take into account all of the GDP generated from products that were in turn generated by oil. For instance, all plastics will also go up in price commensurate to the rise in oil, and so on down the supply chain.

-----

Uranium is finite, yes, but it is far less finite than oil. Even if we wastefully fail to use breeder reactors (the technology for them exists and is used in other countries, but not the United States), there are hundreds of years with just currently known easily-accessible deposits of Uranium. Breeder reactors take us to about a millennium even with a fairly pessimistic energy demand projection. And then we can move to Thorium -- the technology to fission Thorium also exists, it's a little harder to get the reaction started, but it's more abundant.

The problem is that Nuclear solves the problem of electricity (so long as people take their heads out of the sand on the issue), but it has more difficulty resolving some of the other uses for oil. Coal can replace some of it, but coal for energy is not exactly a happy option for your lungs and for your radiation exposure (yes, it is significantly worse than Nuclear on that count). I don't really know the plastic-making process for coal. Bio-oils may be viable too, considering that non-burning uses of oil are a lot less, but I don't know for sure.

Solar and Wind are finicky and location bound, and furthermore they decrease in efficiency the more you use them in one area. Plus using too many of them can have negative global environmental impact, believe it or not. Currently solar might even have a slightly negative ROEI (return on energy invested).

Currently, I'm hoping for nanotech to obsolete some of these things. Innovations like graphene and such. We've seen some amazing products out of nanotech, it's just starting -- but I can't guarantee results, especially results on time.

Still, electricity generation and vehicle fuel are the biggest uses of oil today. If we could snap our fingers and move those uses onto something else, the alternative uses of oil could go on unchanged for...quite some time. I'm uncomfortable making a prediction that far into the future without having read a study to back me up.

-----

To the person who said the price rising won't be exponential: there is a difference between a random "noisy" 2% fluctuation in price and a continual decline in supply -- the 2% is permanent, and followed by another 2%, and another, and as demand goes up and supply goes down, the interval between those 2%'s will shorten. It will certainly be an approximate exponential rise in price, until we switch to viable alternatives. If no alternative is found (counting conservation, i.e. not using oil, as an alternative, as well as artificial oil production like biodeisel), then the price will rise until there is absolutely none left. At which point it costs infinity dollars. Which is really expensive, as laptops go.

-----

My position? Many peak-oilers of the "the end is nigh" variety do overstate the situation, as though there were a sudden crash rather than a gradual (albeit exponential) weaning coming. Still, they undeniably have a point. Oil reservoirs won't last forever, and we may or may not have peaked already but if we haven't, it's in the very near future. Thinking that it'll just make your laptop cost $5 more and your gas money cost another $100 per annum is a sign of incredible naivety. Unless you are getting on in years and expect to die soonish. In which case it is irresponsible towards those younger than you.

100 years ago, the US experienced a local peak timber, and as a result the price of wood grew. Alternatives are sometimes used, and responsible forest management and (often irresponsible) imports now pick up the timber slack. About 40 years ago IIRC US had local peak oil. Global peak oil may have passed or, at the most incredibly optimistic, is 15 years away. Probably it's within 5 years, according to what I've seen.

Try not to waste stuff (this goes for all things in life), don't drag your heels about Nuclear and other alternatives, and for god's sake don't tell people who can make a difference that there will be absolutely no problems, and you'll be alright.
Here here.

Just one itsy bitsy little problem: you'll never see a U.S. corporation doing any of this.

I recently saw a commercial by ConacoPhillips, mentioning a coming energy crisis and trotting out natural gas as a panacea, as if both trying to warn people and tell them there's nothing to worry about at the same time. The oil companies, collapsing and combining as they go--I know for a fact Conaco and Phillips were separate companies just a few years ago--are simply dogpiling on the remaining oil, not giving a shit about what could actually be done.

And I, quite frankly, expect nothing less out of corporations in Europe and Asia as well. China especially is going to just eat up all the oil it possibly can.

No, instead of reasonable planned alternatives, we'll see things crashing down around our ears and a probable war over oil in the Middle East in about a decade or so. I suspect it'll start between Russia and China, and then the U.S.'ll get into the fray.

Me, I'm thinking of buying some land somewhere in Colorado eventually and settling down with a nice sized farm, with a custom built house specifically made to be as efficient as possible. I dunno about you, but this seems like a decent plan. I know I'd like to be self-sufficient no matter how things turn out. Crashes around my ears with civilization mostly disappearing? I've got things right there ready to start building a nice new tiny town. Everything fine? I'm still self-sufficient, and no doubt rather content too. So, yah. =/

Me, I'm thinking of buying some land somewhere in Colorado eventually and settling down with a nice sized farm, with a custom built house specifically made to be as efficient as possible. I dunno about you, but this seems like a decent plan. I know I'd like to be self-sufficient no matter how things turn out.
Friends of the family live like that. They get their electrical power from a generator in a stream. Nowadays you can also get your own wind and solar systems. With a hybrid car you could store enough gasoline to last you a long time, or soon you should be able to buy a plug in hybrid that you could charge using say wind power. Personally I don't think you'd have to grow all your own food or anything. Just have enough supplies handy in case you have to.

Friends of the family live like that. They get their electrical power from a generator in a stream. Nowadays you can also get your own wind and solar systems. With a hybrid car you could store enough gasoline to last you a long time, or soon you should be able to buy a plug in hybrid that you could charge using say wind power. Personally I don't think you'd have to grow all your own food or anything. Just have enough supplies handy in case you have to.
And have the land handy to do so with. I'd still rather have it legally than nab it illegally, even if should everything fall legality is a moot issue. Call it a moral way of looking at it.

But yah, ever since I read up on that stuff I've wanted to do it. And there's no better place to live than Colorado, in my opinion. So long as you're not on the eastern plains.

If only there was a place in the world safe from peak oil. A drastic rise in oil prices and the subsequent crash of the US automobile industry would destroy the American economy, and with it, the world’s economy. Hope you like bartering and eating only the food you can organically grow in Australia.

Hope you like bartering and eating only the food you can organically grow in Australia.

(Sings)
"Living in squalor on the Aussie dollar,
It is plain to see we are a bannana republic now."


But we stopped using bartering and started using money long before we started using industrial quantities of oil and we'll continue to use money even if the U.S. economy crashes. And due to the high price of natural gas, coal powered Nitrogen fertilizer plants are being built, so we won't have to eat only organic food.

Australia survived World War II and I doubt peak oil will be as big a disruption.

But we stopped using bartering and started using money long before we started using industrial quantities of oil and we'll continue to use money even if the U.S. economy crashes.
Humanity has risen far. Our far will likely be great. Great enough to disenfranchise us to such a degree that the vast majority no longer see the point in hoarding something they can not eat or take shelter in.
And due to the high price of natural gas, coal powered Nitrogen fertilizer plants are being built, so we won't have to eat only organic food.
And what is powering the machines building those plants? What will power the vehicles that will deliver the fertilizer? What powers the machines that spread the fertiliser? Unless you plan on these factories being the center of every farming community, this is a futile effort.

Anyone who thinks that the US and China will let anybody else have oil in just a few years is sadly mistaken. They will need what little is left to maintain their war machines.
Australia survived World War II and I doubt peak oil will be as big a disruption.
Not your best historical reference. Australia was only spared Japanese occupation because of the Battle of the Corral Sea, a fight between America and Japan. Without the United States, Australia would most certainly have suffered a fate even worse than Korea and Japan, seeing as you are a predominatly white bunch. Not that I care or feel any pride in what the country I was born in did out there.

Work on your allusions is all I’m saying.

(Sings)
"Living in squalor on the Aussie dollar,
It is plain to see we are a bannana republic now."


But we stopped using bartering and started using money long before we started using industrial quantities of oil and we'll continue to use money even if the U.S. economy crashes. And due to the high price of natural gas, coal powered Nitrogen fertilizer plants are being built, so we won't have to eat only organic food.

Australia survived World War II and I doubt peak oil will be as big a disruption.

Here, Here! we won't be reduced to bartering. When the world's currencies crash, we'll go back to using precious metals. We are already seeing 25 year highs in the gold and silver markets.

And what is powering the machines building those plants? What will power the vehicles that will deliver the fertilizer? What powers the machines that spread the fertiliser? Unless you plan on these factories being the center of every farming community, this is a futile effort.

Currently they run oil. But there is no reason why they couldn't run on ethanol or electricity generated from coal, wind or other sources. As oil rises in price, machines will be built that use less oil and that don't use oil at all. We do have some time to do this in. Although it might not be easy we are talking about peak oil here, a 2-3% decline in production per year, not the sudden disapearance of oil.

Not your best historical reference. Australia was only spared Japanese occupation because of the Battle of the Corral Sea, a fight between America and Japan... Work on your allusions is all I’m saying.

I think Australia was in on that too. And what are you saying? That because America came to our rescue the flow of oil into the country wasn't reduced to a trickle? A disruption much greater than predicted to occur due to peak oil, and that we didn't survive this? I think my allusion stands. It's not about battles it's about oil restrictions.

You are forgetting natural gas. LNG imports are going to get pretty pricey once the Americans and a whole bunch of other countries build their gassification terminals and start snapping up contracts, and Australia will have to manage that situation very carefully.

The proportion of GDP that energy makes up is irrelevant. It is a pre-requisite for the remainder of the GDP. Remove that 1%, the rest crumbles. It's like saying agriculture is a small and relatively unimportant proportion of GDP. Maybe, but what are you going to eat?

Australia also has the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. That suggests to me stunning energy inefficiency, and a structural problem easily on a par with that faced by the US.

Really the only things going for Australia are solar, passive water heating, a coal industry in generally good shape, and a generally warm climate. Don't let it fool you though. To date, actions taken to address oil and natural gas use are negligible.

Australia also has the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world. That suggests to me stunning energy inefficiency, and a structural problem easily on a par with that faced by the US.

I thought Australia was second. What do you know? We're number one!

But no, it's not due to stunning energy inefficiency, our cars are more fuel efficient than those in the U.S. and our industries are just as efficent as typical in first world countries. It's due to being an agricultural and mining giant. We put energy into growing food and then we sell it overseas. We spend the energy, people overseas do the eating. We spend energy extracting and refining minerals, people overseas make them into stuff. So when you go to McDonalds the beef in the hamburger contains a little bit of energy from Australia. When you buy a coke can the aluminium was made using energy in Australia. We export energy in the food and minerals we sell. Sure we import energy in say the computer programs and TV shows we get from the U.S. but much much less.

But no, it's not due to stunning energy inefficiency, our cars are more fuel efficient than those in the U.S. and our industries are just as efficent as typical in first world countries. It's due to being an agricultural and mining giant. We put energy into growing food and then we sell it overseas. We spend the energy, people overseas do the eating. We spend energy extracting and refining minerals, people overseas make them into stuff. So when you go to McDonalds the beef in the hamburger contains a little bit of energy from Australia. When you buy a coke can the aluminium was made using energy in Australia. We export energy in the food and minerals we sell. Sure we import energy in say the computer programs and TV shows we get from the U.S. but much much less.
The economic consequences of a forced cut-back would be interesting, no? ;)

The economic consequences of a forced cut-back would be interesting, no?

Been there, done that. World War II, the oil shocks of the 70's, the recent doubling of oil prices. We managed, I'm sure we'll manage again. I'm not saying we'll like it, but it need not be a disaster. Besides, most of that energy comes from coal. When we get to peak coal get back to me. Actually, get back to me when the icecaps melt.

Those were very brief, not even a decade in duration. The energy situation we face is considerably more long-term than that.

You are forgetting natural gas. LNG imports are going to get pretty pricey once the Americans and a whole bunch of other countries build their gassification terminals and start snapping up contracts, and Australia will have to manage that situation very carefully.
What's the problem? We'll do what we always do. We'll say, "Oh Crikey! We sold all our natural gas to the U.S.! Let's whinge about how the government should do something until we finally get around to replacing our gas using products with something made in Japan and then forget about it and find something else to whinge about." Simple.

You have to remember that Australia survived peak wool. Now THAT was tough.

Those were very brief, not even a decade in duration. The energy situation we face is considerably more long-term than that.

Yes, but the decline is smaller, 2-3% a year. I'm not saying there is no problem, but I am saying we can:

1. Use less oil to achieve the same result, for example by using more fuel efficent cars, etc.

2. Switch to processes that don't require oil at all such as electric cars powered by coal, wind, nuclear, etc. Crops that fix their own nitrogen. Coal powered Nitrogen fertilizer plants. Plastics made from waste gases of coke distillation and so on.

Now this may not be easy, but as the price of oil goes up we will do the easiest things first, then as prices go up more we will progressively do harder things.

It's not impossible. The cost of batteries to turn a normal hybrid car into a "plug in" hybrid that won't need petrol for day to day use might cost $2,000 or more. But if it saves $500 petrol a year companies will start producing them and people will start buying them.

Now if instead of peak oil, you started talking about atomic war in the Mid-East, yeah, then we'd be pretty screwed. (But not completely screwed!)

The economic consequences of a forced cut-back would be interesting, no? ;)

Actually, after the end of the first oil shock in 1973, unemployment fell throughout the 1970's and there were no recessions until 1982, which was intentionally caused to beat inflation. Real wages fell 11%, but there were other factors impacting that drop anyway.

We've got the technology to transition from oil to alternative energy already, and the following years will just make it more efficent and diversified. Peak oil is an economic opportunity, not a drawback; the environment and people will benefit from it following the inital inflation and possible recessions.

All we need is oil to remain expensive and we're set to make the transition. Every year oil remains expensive seems to be five years of advancement in alternative energy, especially in the past two years.

Those were very brief, not even a decade in duration. The energy situation we face is considerably more long-term than that.

Well, if we use the data from Laherrere, it's going to peak in 2020 with a decline of around 1.2% per year. That's easily manageable, especially with the fact that prices will likely remain high before the peak; by 2020, there will be a lot more options available for eliminating petroleum/natural gas from the economy.

ASPO (which seems too pessimistic on the production side), predicts a peak around 2010 with 2% per year. That would be rougher, but still manageable.

This time the decline is permanent. The effect of this on markets and conditions for investment will likely prove devastating. Previously, there was a certainty that output would rise again. This time there isn't. It will be interesting to see what happens to economic activity once the reasonable expectation that debts can be repaid is removed.

I do agree there are numerous measures which can help if pursued with vigour, simultaneously. But this is not happening. Since the 1960s, statistical methods have predicted that global peak oil production would be reached around 2000. During the late 1990s a consensus emerged that 2005-2008 was a reasonable date range. Even those bodies which previously claimed 2030 are saying 2015 now, because they started losing credibility. And along the way we had the 1973 and 1979-1983 difficulties. In the UK, the effects of the 2000 fuel protests demonstrated the country had serious structural weaknesses.

The lessons learnt? None.

No-one is seriously working on anything new. Even established technologies such as wind and nuclear are withering through political procrastination and fear. Only yesterday the UK parliamentary environmental audit committee published a report saying there was no point in nuclear beause it would not address short-term energy issues. Consider that. Even now, in one of the most technologically far-sighted countries in the world, the people in charge imply that a long-term strategy should not be pursued because it is the short term that is important.

It's 2006, I have spent 5 years already waiting for the penny to drop, and we are pretty much fucked because still no-one in a position of power is doing anything about it. What is the value of optimism when you have already approached the edge of the slope? We will be well on the way down it in 2020 with wrecked economies 1991 USSR-style, fighting wars, before the democratic majority realise what's up.

Idealy we will have the capability to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons en mass inexpensivly in a few years.

Idealy we will have the capability to manufacture synthetic hydrocarbons en mass inexpensivly in a few years.
With the energy input and feedstock being what? :rolleyes:

-snip-

The thing is, however, that we have a lot of power to reduce consumption through conservation. After the 1979 oil crisis, demand didn't return to the levels of the 1970's until around 2000; that prolonged the peak considerably and is perfectly possible again. If Americans turned down their thermostats by 2 degrees in the winter, natural gas demand would fall by 8% immediately.

Even if oil were to peak suddenly, we have a lot of room through immediate demand destruction. As long as oil holds above $50, the alternative energy technology will advance by leaps and bounds, and if it goes higher demand destruction will kick in.

Also, some stuff can and is being replaced right now; bioplastics can concievably replace an increasingly large share of our petroleum-based market with less pollution and waste. They are pretty much cost competitive now, and will be cheaper in the next few years. That alone would cut demand for oil by 4%.

With the energy input and feedstock being what? :rolleyes:

Hydrogen and carbon which are readily availiably in nature, however refining them expends alot of energy. Simply put the two elements into a system under pressure and you get something similar to crude oil. Very very expensive crude oil.

The lessons learnt? None.

I agree with you that the behavior of governments all over the world has been abysmal when it comes to prepareing for peak oil. However, my relative optimism is not based upon the actions of governments. It is based upon people trying to save money by reducing petroleum use and people trying to make money by selling products that save people from using petroleum.

Already I have seen people doing plenty of things to reduce oil use with prices at their current levels. Farmers decide what strains of crops to grow based on how much fertilizer they will need, people buying fuel efficent cars, people doing things like going on vaction with two cars - one big gas guzzeler to tow their caravan and one small fuel efficient one to drive around in when they don't need the caravan. People are using the phone and internet more instead driving to shops. Basically I see people adapting because high oil prices hurt their hip pockets. I agree that things would be a lot better if governments were more responsible, but fortunately sensible governments are not required. Which is very good because they are so rare.

With the energy input and feedstock being what? :rolleyes:

They probably mean coal liquefaction; as far as I know the process is cost competitive at $25-35/barrel. The energy required could come from nonpetroleum sources, either renewable or coal.

Hydrogen and carbon which are readily availiably in nature, however refining them expends alot of energy. Simply put the two elements into a system under pressure and you get something similar to crude oil. Very very expensive crude oil.
Oh, that. People have achieved more economic results with animal carcasses, although there is a very small supply of that. The problem is how much energy needs to be fed back into the process. Energy is lost at every stage, and it would make no sense to be consuming a barrel for every barrel produced.

Oh, that. People have achieved more economic results with animal carcasses, although there is a very small supply of that. The problem is how much energy needs to be fed back into the process. Energy is lost at every stage, and it would make no sense to be consuming a barrel for every barrel produced.

Bingo.

Oh, that. People have achieved more economic results with animal carcasses, although there is a very small supply of that. The problem is how much energy needs to be fed back into the process. Energy is lost at every stage, and it would make no sense to be consuming a barrel for every barrel produced.

Well, we're assuming that fossil fuels are going to be used in the process. If a company wanted to, it could probably be done with little fossil fuel input.

Solar or Nuclear power as the energy input.

Solar or Nuclear power as the energy input.

Renewable energy sources are great in that they can be used to power the plants that produce them. Wind power plants can be manufactured using wind-powered facilities, as can solar panels. Eventually, that will spread to more and more manufacturing processes.

People using two cars, a large one and a small one, is not a great example of conservation. A good example would be not using a car or aircraft for holiday travel at all.

Turning down thermostats is one thing. How about turning down the air conditioning? In many parts of the US, peak energy use comes during summer, not winter.

Conservation also has limited scope. An individual may choose to make do with less, thus keeping their expenditure the same. A processed food company will not have that same freedom of choice, and will pass the increased costs on. Result - cost and standard of living fall anyway, just not by as much as would be the case otherwise.

Ultimately you need a new energy and transport infrastructure anyway, because there is no point going through the pain of cutbacks if the government does not meet you halfway. That part of the equation cannot be relied upon. It is likely that individual self-reliance will triumph, only to be let down by political and social failure.

Renewable energy sources are great in that they can be used to power the plants that produce them. Wind power plants can be manufactured using wind-powered facilities, as can solar panels. Eventually, that will spread to more and more manufacturing processes.

There also is a new energy harnessing technology, it basicly is a turbine out to sea. It utilizes the ocean currents to rotate the turbine, thusly eliminating the need for a expensive dam.

Even if oil were to peak suddenly, we have a lot of room through immediate demand destruction.

Yes, I think some people expect world oil to go the way of Texas oil. Oil production in the rest of the world kept the price of oil down even while wells in Texas were running dry and now Texas produces something like one quater of the oil it used to. But if Texas was the only supply of oil for the U.S. prices would have climbed and climbed after the peak resulting in both increased efficiency and substitution. As there is no access to space oil this won't happen after the world oil peak. At some point prices will go even higher than today, resulting in more substitution and efficiency.

Renewable energy sources are great in that they can be used to power the plants that produce them. Wind power plants can be manufactured using wind-powered facilities, as can solar panels. Eventually, that will spread to more and more manufacturing processes.
Only if you get the permission to build them. That is currently not guaranteed.

There also is a new energy harnessing technology, it basicly is a turbine out to sea. It utilizes the ocean currents to rotate the turbine, thusly eliminating the need for a expensive dam.

Tidal power's going to take off soon. The technology is advancing rapidly and is becoming cost competitive in a lot of places.

Only if you get the permission to build them. That is currently not guaranteed.

It's pretty easy to get approval for wind and solar projects in the US in most places; the only places that oppose them are the superrich places like Nantucket. Of the two, solar power is easier, but wind isn't much more difficult.

When oil hits $70 and stays above it, it will be even easier to build them than it is now. If it goes any higher, building those plants will be a rubber stamp in a lot of places.

It's pretty easy to get approval for wind and solar projects in the US in most places; the only places that oppose them are the superrich places like Nantucket. Of the two, solar power is easier, but wind isn't much more difficult.

When oil hits $70 and stays above it, it will be even easier to build them than it is now. If it goes any higher, building those plants will be a rubber stamp in a lot of places.

With wind power its location, location, location.

Ultimately you need a new energy and transport infrastructure anyway, because there is no point going through the pain of cutbacks if the government does not meet you halfway. That part of the equation cannot be relied upon. It is likely that individual self-reliance will triumph, only to be let down by political and social failure.

I don't get this. If I buy a hybrid car I save money on fuel and since I am using less petrol there is a bit more for everyone else. It's win-win without the government doing anything. Hybrids are coming down in price, oil is going to go up at some point in the future. People will change despite having mediocre leadership.

I think the politcal and social failure side of things is more relevant to global warming. I'm sure WE'LL be driving cars in twenty years time. I just wonder if people in Banglidesh will be treading water.

This provides me with a segway to Hydrogen vehicals. Most people have the misconception that they are the answer to global warming. This is not so, if the primary catalist of Global Warming is Carbon Dioxide emmesions hydrogen cars emit CO2 indirectly. The facilities that seperate the Hydrogen emit enough CO2 to simulate a similar number of internal combustion cars. Hydrogen cars maybe unreliant of Hydrocarbons but still emit Carbon Dioxide indirectly.

With wind power its location, location, location.

The US has the locations; pretty much all of the Rocky Mountain states, the coasts, and some of the midwest is good for wind power. And solar is good anywhere the sun shines somewhat dependably.

This provides me with a segway to Hydrogen vehicals. Most people have the misconception that they are the answer to global warming. This is not so, if the primary catalist of Global Warming is Carbon Dioxide emmesions hydrogen cars emit CO2 indirectly. The facilities that seperate the Hydrogen emit enough CO2 to simulate a similar number of internal combustion cars. Hydrogen cars maybe unreliant of Hydrocarbons but still emit Carbon Dioxide indirectly.

That's why methanol will become more and more important in the future. One way of making it is to use CO2 right from the atmosphere itself, although that process is still not very economical or efficent compared to others.

This provides me with a segway to Hydrogen vehicals. Most people have the misconception that they are the answer to global warming. This is not so, if the primary catalist of Global Warming is Carbon Dioxide emmesions hydrogen cars emit CO2 indirectly. The facilities that seperate the Hydrogen emit enough CO2 to simulate a similar number of internal combustion cars. Hydrogen cars maybe unreliant of Hydrocarbons but still emit Carbon Dioxide indirectly.

Yes, I never got this. They want to burn coal or use nuclear power or whatever to make hydrogen, ship it, store it, then use it to run cars. I cannot see how this is better than just using electric cars or plug in hybrids. Electric cars are far more efficent and a lot of the infrastructure (powerlines and powerplants) is already in place. Hydrogen is NOT the answer (barring some incredible improvements which I do not believe will occur.)

About hydrogen cars - I just checked their efficency and it's not as bad as I thought it was. Using coal to produce hydrogen is perhaps as efficent as using coal to produce electricity for an electric car. However, electric cars require no new infrastructure. You can go and buy an electric car and plug it into a power point, but there's no where around here where you can buy hydrogen. Then there's the cost of producing hydrogen production plants, transporting it, building hydrogen storage at service stations, safety issues and so on. Electric cars still will hands down. (Anodes down?)

Everyone gets home from work, plugs in their car to recharge it, the grid melts. Woot.

No, we do not have the infrastructure for electric cars. We would have to at least double the size of our electrical energy systems in order to accommodate a full switchover of our entire car fleets to electric power, while solving the hideous harmonics problems, and ensuring all that power is non-gas-fired.

It's not going to happen.

Everyone gets home from work, plugs in their car to recharge it, the grid melts. Woot.

IIRC, plug-ins are supposed to be plugged in at night during the period of lowest consumption. Plus, if we put in flow batteries to manage demand it would help the problem considerably; the technology needs a few years, however.

No, we do not have the infrastructure for electric cars. We would have to at least double the size of our electrical energy systems in order to accommodate a full switchover of our entire car fleets to electric power, while solving the hideous harmonics problems, and ensuring all that power is non-gas-fired.

A full switchover isn't possible yet. I could see some cars doing it, especially if the houses that they are plugged in to use their own solar or wind power, but not the whole grid. Alternative fuels and higher fuel economy are much more practical now.

It's not going to happen.

Not yet.

Everyone gets home from work, plugs in their car to recharge it, the grid melts. Woot.

No, we do not have the infrastructure for electric cars. We would have to at least double the size of our electrical energy systems in order to accommodate a full switchover of our entire car fleets to electric power, while solving the hideous harmonics problems, and ensuring all that power is non-gas-fired.

It's not going to happen.

XXXXX! EDIT: Actually, the prospects for electrical transportation are much rosier than you suggest

First, there is off peak electric.

Second, while about half of the energy consumed in the U.S. goes on transportation, electric motors are much more efficent than internal combustion motors. If every car and truck in America was electric power supply would only have to be increased by one fifth.

And since it might take 20+ years to switch over I think there would be plenty of time to build additional electrical generation capacity.

Of course Australia has an advantage over the U.S. with out wickedly powerful electrical standards we can charge a big electric car overnight through a normal power socket. Since they only have half the juice in their sockets they might need smaller cars or since this is America they will just hook their cars to a more robust feed like they do with their air conditioners.

What are harmonics problems? Are you talking about electric cars fiddleing with my TV reception?

Off-peak electric? Mass human behaviour is not rational. If you give people the ability to overload the grid through complacency or lack of effort / responsibility, they will do it. Which is why the ability is rarely given in the first place.

Harmonics are too difficult a subject to cover here. Basically switched-mode power supplies such as battery chargers cause transformers to overheat.

I also don't think you know what you mean by efficiency. What do you mean increase power supply by only a fifth because electric cars are more efficient than petrol and diesel? What does petrol and diesel have to do with anything? Charging currents and the size and non-linearity of the resulting load, and its interaction with the rest of the system are the issue. Considering I work in this realm, I doubt you can suggest a counter to any flaw I can point out.

An all-electric private car ownership system necessitates at least a doubling of available capacity and a redesign of the network. Seriously. We are never going to achieve it with what we have now.

Off-peak electric? Mass human behaviour is not rational. If you give people the ability to overload the grid through complacency or lack of effort / responsibility, they will do it. Which is why the ability is rarely given in the first place.

That's why it will probably require houses to produce some of their own power before they can begin to use plug-in hybrids on a large scale. Right now, it would be too demanding for a significant portion of the fleet to use this method.
Harmonics are too difficult a subject to cover here. Basically switched-mode power supplies such as battery chargers cause transformers to overheat.

I'm wondering, if a household were to generate at least a portion of its own electricity and store any surplus it produces in flow batteries, would that help address the situation of erratic power flows and reduce the problem of overheating?


An all-electric private car ownership system necessitates at least a doubling of available capacity and a redesign of the network. Seriously. We are never going to achieve it with what we have now.

That's why the focus is on alternative fuels and on improved fuel economy. (aside from the fact that plug-in hybrids are still very expensive relative to ordinary ones or nonhybrid versions of the same vehicle). Once the initial problem of reducing oil consumption is addressed through alternatives and increased efficiency, we can focus on further improving our transportation methods through the use of electric cars and other things like hydrogen.

Flow batteries are an exotic technology, and once their use becomes more widespread, their applications will be in power flow management not micro-management of household demand. Applications of a similar nature to pumped storage for system frequency regulation, for example. Big, industrial, etc.

I think it is more feasible for buildings to generate part of their own electricity, isolated from the rest of the network, than any high-tech solution like that. Something as simple wind or solar, and the simplest solar is for passive water heating as is already common in the Mediterranean and Middle East. In comparison CHP looks like a dead technology already, in view of ever-increasing natural gas prices and future availiability issues.

I agree the simplest solution is for everyone to switch on fewer devices, and cut down on their travel. But you really need cataclysmic events to effect social change like that. It took the 2000 fuel protests to get UK people thinking about how they would cope, but the moment passed after a week, and only reinforced the false impression that all such problems are economic fluctuations, not fundamental physical and technological issues.

The key to successfully adapting our civilisation to this, is for the opening stages of the crisis to be of disproportionate severity. Otherwise if the slope is too gentle, people and organisations will not notice until it is too late to act, and we will be forced to respond starting from a greatly weakened position. For example, the UK government wishes to force through a rapid building programme of nuclear power stations this summer/autumn. A network collapse or serious gas outage during last winter would have had excellent moral effects, and could have given lukewarm support for the programme a much-needed boost. It would be far harder to carry out the same programme if starting much later, from a state of recession.

The longer the situation goes unaddressed, the more resilient our culture's denial turns out to be, the more I lean towards the gloomy conclusion that a manufactured crisis may be the only way to alter the public consciousness in the correct direction.

Off-peak electric? Mass human behaviour is not rational. If you give people the ability to overload the grid through complacency or lack of effort / responsibility, they will do it. Which is why the ability is rarely given in the first place.

Umm, so why does the power grid work now? I mean we have the power to overload it now, but we don't. Well actually we do in small areas, you know with air conditioners and stuff. But we fix it again. If I am the first person in my town to buy an electric car, it won't blow out my towns grid. The grid's a bit tougher than that. Used to be no one had air conditioners. Now we got air conditioners power usage and peak times changed, but power companies adapted because they could make money by selling more electricity. And we didn't all get air condioners at once, we got them gradually.

I also don't think you know what you mean by efficiency. What do you mean increase power supply by only a fifth because electric cars are more efficient than petrol and diesel? What does petrol and diesel have to do with anything?

If you burn fuel to power a car in an internal combustion engine you can go X miles. If you burn the same amount of fuel to generate electricity for an electric motor you can go perhaps 2X miles. That's how hybid cars get better fuel efficency than standard cars. So electrical powered cars need less energy to travel the same amount of miles as internal combustion engine cars. So electric cars engines are more efficent than internal combustion.

An all-electric private car ownership system necessitates at least a doubling of available capacity and a redesign of the network. Seriously. We are never going to achieve it with what we have now.

We managed doublings and triplings of electical power in the thirties. Don't see why we can't mangage to increase it by (I say) a fifth over 20 years if we wanted to. Of course there may be a better alternative to this that I'm not aware of, but I don't see why it couldn't be achieved without great difficulty.

It is easy to double or triple something small. Less easy to double or triple something vast. These days building one grid substation takes 3 years. Many in the West are due for upgrade or replacement, and the maintenance is a significant undertaking already. The factories which make the equipment have finite production capacities. Put simply, many countries do not have the capacity and manpower to achieve such expansion. The UK being one. The US another.

I think the UK government should start renovating the rail network and pay for the project by increased car taxes. A good rail network would make commuting viable without the need for petrol.

It is easy to double or triple something small. Less easy to double or triple something vast. These days building one grid substation takes 3 years. Many in the West are due for upgrade or replacement, and the maintenance is a significant undertaking already. The factories which make the equipment have finite production capacities. Put simply, many countries do not have the capacity and manpower to achieve such expansion. The UK being one. The US another.

I find this a little bizzare. I think first world economies are up to the task of increasing power if they need to. As an example of what modern economies are capable of I could point to the massive mobilization of U.S. industry after the Pearl Harbour surprise attack. If the U.S. was capable of almost producing one aircraft carrier a week by the end of the war, I think an increase in electrical production over 20 years could be managed.

And you might say the war was some kind of special case. Okay, what about the increase in car production in the 50's and 60's? How about the vast increase in computer production starting in the 80's? The containerization of cargo? The air industry? The U.S. especially seems capable of great things if there is money to be made and there is money to be made in supplying power to people. I would also point out that the U.S. economy is something like four times larger per capita than it was at the end of World War II. One fifth increase in generating power is probably less than what Australia had to deal with when people started buying air conditoners.

Cars, electric or otherwise, will have to go the way of the dodo. Making a car is particularly resource intensive and requires waay to much energy so that one person can use it two hours a day to go to work. The cost to own one for personal use will be prohibitive. We'll either see flotillas of public use small cars, or massive public transportation being used.

Electrical engines may be efficient, but the electrical grid is not. It's very inefficient to generate wind or solar energy and then using cables to send it on a long trip. A lot of energy is lost that way. It's far more efficient to have a power station generating electricity for a building or a block of houses, which is probably what will happen.

The Holy Grail right now is finding a way to convert energy into a liquid that you can then transport or store and turn back into energy when you need it. So far, nothing too promising.

Electrical engines may be efficient, but the electrical grid is not. It's very inefficient to generate wind or solar energy and then using cables to send it on a long trip. A lot of energy is lost that way. It's far more efficient to have a power station generating electricity for a building or a block of houses, which is probably what will happen.

I thought something like 4% of power was lost in transmission?

Okay some figures for transmission losses - 7.2% in the U.S. in 1995 and 7.4% in the U.K. in 1998. I would have bet that U.S. would have greater transmission losses with their more spread out population.

Okay some figures for transmission losses - 7.2% in the U.S. in 1995 and 7.4% in the U.K. in 1998. I would have bet that U.S. would have greater transmission losses with their more spread out population.
The age also affects. They're relatively low because the production is close to the users. With wind and solar that is often not the case.
Although people like sunny places, maybe they can be convinced to move.

I find this a little bizzare. I think first world economies are up to the task of increasing power if they need to. As an example of what modern economies are capable of I could point to the massive mobilization of U.S. industry after the Pearl Harbour surprise attack. If the U.S. was capable of almost producing one aircraft carrier a week by the end of the war, I think an increase in electrical production over 20 years could be managed.
It was a command economy, not a market economy. That stuff got achieved in the same way that Stalin's Five Year Plans were achieved - the government planned, managed and funded the whole thing. No-one had to ask permission, the government gave orders, the people did not question them, and the work was done, year after year.

Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to the Bush Administration, compared the scale of the challenge facing just the US to a new Apollo Project. The scale of government spending, industrial coordination, and application of technical expertise is easily comparable to that undertaking.

What's more, the scale of public understanding and motivation was stunning at the time, but absent now. People knew what was going on, and why. They knew the problem and the goal.

Things today are a little different. People neither know, nor care. Companies have to grovel before local pressure groups, lobbies and the environmental movement, while governments boast with pride about how completely they have abdicated responsibility.

Do you really think NASA would have put men on the Moon if the American public did not know it was there? Do you really think the US would have transformed itself into a war economy if the majority of the public didn't know about the war and didn't care?

What you are suggesting requires nothing less than the world's governments setting up technocratic supervisory bodies and giving the energy industry a blank cheque book. It also requires the public taking orders and not challenging planning decisions. That is not going to happen if people are not on the same page. At least we are arguing over the issue on a web forum, but only a negligible portion of all the people on Earth even know anything about it. That's not a good starting point.

I thought the U.S. could do anything. Like my father always said, if you want to change the course of a river, get an American to do it. If you want to have a good weekend, get an Australian to talk you out of it.

And although the U.S. was a command economy I during the war I also gave many examples of great U.S. acomplishments during peacetime. For example look how the U.S. eliminated hook worm in the South, look at Hoover dam. Consider the national highway system, or the intercontinental railroads spreading from sea to shining sea.

I have a dream that one day the brothers and sister of America will join hands and together build the infrastructure of the 21st century. And the eyes of all nations will turn to them as they once again take their place as leaders of the free world and create a new century of peace and prosperity.

Cars, electric or otherwise, will have to go the way of the dodo. Making a car is particularly resource intensive and requires waay to much energy so that one person can use it two hours a day to go to work. The cost to own one for personal use will be prohibitive. We'll either see flotillas of public use small cars, or massive public transportation being used.

I don't think it necessarily will; there's a lot of room for efficiency upgrades in the production process, and the materials involved can be reduced through the use of new technology to increase strength and decrease weight, which reduces both fuel consumption and the amount of materials actually used in the process.

Compare the weight and material consumption of the average car in the 1950's or 1960's with an average car today; they were much heavier and inefficent but we were able to reduce that without sacrificing safety and, in fact, actually improved it at the same time we reduced the amount of materials involved. Henry Ford made an entire Model A out of renewable resources back in the 1930's, so it's certainly possible to do so now.

The car doesn't need to disappear, but the way it's made and what kind/how much fuel it runs on needs to change. And I think the market is doing that right now and will continue to do so in to the future to a larger and larger degree.

Matthew Simmons, a former energy adviser to the Bush Administration, compared the scale of the challenge facing just the US to a new Apollo Project. The scale of government spending, industrial coordination, and application of technical expertise is easily comparable to that undertaking.
.

I think the market can make the change; when there's a profit to be made, there will be someone who will undertake the opportunity.

The Apollo project wasn't a for-profit enterprise; the only reason why private companies didn't do it was because there was no profit in it without government backing. I think we'll need legislative action to make the process easier, but not the government leading us by the hand.

Right on, Vetalia!

Much of the US highway system and most of its hydro-electric projects were the product of the Depression-era command economy of the 1930s.

The market cannot be relied upon to make the change either. Making changes in time is likely to be a loss-making enterprise. For example nuclear power stations in the UK are not economical without state backing. It is a fallacy to believe that everything that is necessary, must be capable of turning a profit.

What do you suggest, then, TG? Force a situation to make it clear to the British and American populace? Or is there something less drastic we could do?

And although the U.S. was a command economy I during the war I also gave many examples of great U.S. acomplishments during peacetime. For example look how the U.S. eliminated hook worm in the South, look at Hoover dam. Consider the national highway system, or the intercontinental railroads spreading from sea to shining sea.


Hoover Damn-Brought electricity to people who didn't have it before hand. This posed a great marvel to these people. People were willing to rally for it because of it's obvious gains. Unfortunatley, with the current problem, people already have the product(energy), and are often under the false notion that it is infinite(which it is not), and that oil is nearly so as well(which it is not). Hard to get people to rally under a certain program, when the current program "seems" to be working.

Highway-Government built for wartime use, believe it or not.

Railroad-People were fascinated back then with such marvelous things. It's easy to get people to support something that is awe-inspiring. Also, people were more willing to work on something if they aren't apathetic-which is what Americans today are. Most Americans just don't give a damn. People back then did, people today don't.

What do you suggest, then, TG? Force a situation to make it clear to the British and American populace? Or is there something less drastic we could do?
I wish the great mass of people were well informed and acted in their best interests. As history shows, such wishes are futile. :(

A manufactured energy crisis aimed at influencing public attitudes towards a vast energy infrastructure redevelopment programme is one solution. Any such crisis would have to be of sufficient severity to visibly threaten the industrial underpinnings of modern civilisation, at the very least at the national level.

Less charitably, I would suggest the world collides with the problem and suffers as it thoroughly deserves to, paying the price for its denial.

Or maybe people will miraculously wake up tomorrow and smell the coffee.

There really isn't an in-between area that I can see. Either people know what they're dealing with and adapt, or they don't. Individual endeavours are meaningless if society and the national infrastructure are not ready. Problems don't go away if you ignore them. "They" are not going to "Think of something" if no-one asks or pays them to do so.

Well, in that case, TG, I suggest you and the gang in the energy business start drawing up plans for a staged energy crisis. =/

People back then did, people today don't.
Spot on. Exactly the point I was making. The heavy industrial achievements of days gone by were only possible because everyone had the same goal in mind. Now it's all meh, someone else's problem. When the crisis bites deeper, the current shortage of enthusiasm will be half the problem.

Much of the US highway system and most of its hydro-electric projects were the product of the Depression-era command economy of the 1930s.


Most of the US highway system is post WWII. Hence the bits that call it the Eisenhower interstate system.

And I believe a great deal of the northern hydroelectric is also post WWII,

Though you are correct in that the TVA, which has been a great boon to the south was a government program.

The US has never had a command economy outside of a few public authorities however.

Well, in that case, TG, I suggest you and the gang in the energy business start drawing up plans for a staged energy crisis. =/
On a national level, only a state monopoly could conspire to that effect. Private industry would never do it. Permitting disruptions further upstream however, in the realm of geopolitics, that is another matter. A policy of supply disruption to precede demand destruction, if you will.

It is extremely unlikely, but who knows, we may see that. Knowing human nature, the people in a position to make that choice, would choose to conspire to grab their share, rather than conspire to kick-start an orderly transition. Which option do you think our governments would choose, if they were the only two available?

On a national level, only a state monopoly could conspire to that effect. Private industry would never do it. Permitting disruptions further upstream however, in the realm of geopolitics, that is another matter. A policy of supply disruption to precede demand destruction, if you will.

It is extremely unlikely, but who knows, we may see that. Knowing human nature, the people in a position to make that choice, would choose to conspire to grab their share, rather than conspire to kick-start an orderly transition. Which option do you think our governments would choose, if they were the only two available?
Oh, that's not even a question: they'd go for whatever is good for them, and fuck all the rest. It's human nature. Meh. We'll just have to wait and see.

Out of curiosity, when do you expect things'll start actually falling apart?

AMERICAN 1: The lights have gone out.

AMERICAN 2: So what?

AMERICAN 1: But we have no power.

AMERICAN 2: I don't care.

AMERICAN 1: Do you want to call an electician?

AMERICAN 2: Wouldn't do any good. It's probably a failure of the national grid.

AMERICAN 1: Well should we complain to our congressman?

AMERICAN 2: That wouldn't do any good. Not just some, but all politicians are incompetent and corrupt.

AMERICAN 1: Well do you want to call the local power company? It's a private company. We can pay them to generate power.

AMERICAN 2: That wouldn't do any good. There is no profit to be made from supplying electricity. Besides, they probably need vital electrical components which they don't have.

AMERICAN 1: Well you're an electrical engineer and I'm a technician. Let's make these parts! Remember the stories grandad told us of building his own generator on the farm? Back when he didn't have the tools and technical training we have now?

AMERICAN 2: I don't see how it would be in my self interest to do that.

AMERICAN 1: We could buy a generator.

AMERICAN 2: Nahhh... In a decade or so we'll hit peak oil so there's no point.

AMERICAN 1: Well, we could buy some solar panels.

AMERICAN 2: Nah, they cost more energy to produce than they create.

AMERICAN 1: But at least we'd have some power.

AMERICAN 2: But that's not the point. We can't do anything no matter how much it would benefit us if the energy in vs. energy out figures are bad. Not even to supply emergancy power.

AMERICAN 1: Well we could install solar hot water. That definately pays for itself.

AMERICAN 2: I see no need for hot water.

AMERICAN 1: But you'll have to have a cold shower tonight!

AMERICAN 2: Yes, but I'm not taking a shower yet, so I see no need to worry about it.

AMERICAN 1: Well what about putting in a wind system? That can produce power for the same cost as coal in a lot of places. What's say we put one of them up? We can even make them ourselves in our workshop. If there is some sort of nationwide power crisis we'll be heros and make a fortune!

AMERICAN 2: No, that won't work. Americans don't believe in entreprenuership and a "can do" attitude has never been part of our culture. No American is interested in making money. Despite have many full tanks of acetelene, small generators we can pull out of wrecked cars, and lots of material we can make vanes out of, no American would ever be capable of putting them together to make money or even save their own life.

AMERICAN 1: I'm going to talk to someone who isn't completely useless!

AMERICAN 2: It won't do you any good. It's not just part of the population, or even a majority that's like me. Every single American in the universe is completely incompetent and incapable of doing anything constructive. We can only sit around and wait for the government to do something, but they won't. If you don't believe me just read some of the previous posts.

AMERICAN 1: I don't care, I'm going out there to make my country a better place!

AMERICAN 2: Traitor!

*snips post 101*
That was too funny.

By the way, I've just been checking the costs of thermal solar (not photovoltaic solar) in Australia our test programs suggest that it could produce power for about $35 U.S. a megawatt, which is comparable to coal. Now I'm not sure that I entirely believe that figure, but when you consider the savings in CO2 emmissions, it looks pretty good.

Out of curiosity, when do you expect things'll start actually falling apart?
Probably over the next 5 years or so. The production plateau we have currently cannot be extended beyond that, so the decade 2010-2020 will be all decline. The natural gas situation in the US and UK gets to the crunch point on that timescale too. I guess after adopting then abandoning energy efficiency and conservation over the last 30 years, it's too much to expect people to start acting intelligently in the next five, and sticking to it.

Railroad-People were fascinated back then with such marvelous things. It's easy to get people to support something that is awe-inspiring. Also, people were more willing to work on something if they aren't apathetic-which is what Americans today are. Most Americans just don't give a damn. People back then did, people today don't.

Railroads' history is very similar to that of the Internet. Both were built up due to the enthusiasm of people for the new technology.

Railroads during the first half of the 19th century were identical to the Internet in the 1990's. There was a massive speculative bubble during the 1830's-1840's where thousands of miles of rail lines were laid far beyond the demand at the time, (just like the fiber-optic cable outlays of the 1990's). And, the aftermath of the bubble was similar as well; a lot of companies went bankrupt but those who survived raked in massive profits off of the booming demand for rail transit during midcentury.

There's no difference between then and today when it comes to enthusiasm for new ideas.

There's no difference between then and today when it comes to enthusiasm for new ideas.
Oh? I don't see people excited about wind and nuclear. Or even about conservation for that matter. Indeed, where those things are not met with complete apathy, they are distrusted on political/ideological grounds.

The difference with the Internet is, it has no visible infrastructure. The NIMBYs would have halted railway-mania had it taken place today.

And again, in the 1990s at least people were aware of the benefits of telecommunication. I don't see much public knowledge of the energy situtation. If you don't even know a problem exists, it will own you every time.

Probably over the next 5 years or so. The production plateau we have currently cannot be extended beyond that, so the decade 2010-2020 will be all decline. The natural gas situation in the US and UK gets to the crunch point on that timescale too. I guess after adopting then abandoning energy efficiency and conservation over the last 30 years, it's too much to expect people to start acting intelligently in the next five, and sticking to it.

That's worryingly soon. I'll be finishing sixth-form college and hopefully going to university in a year or twos time. I was going to do an arts degree but I'm good enough to do a degree in mathematics if I had to. Do you think the situation will deteriorate to the extent that anything but a technical qualification will be worthless?

Oh? I don't see people excited about wind and nuclear. Or even about conservation for that matter. Indeed, where those things are not met with complete apathy, they are distrusted on political/ideological grounds.

In the US, we're doubling our wind and solar capacity year over year, and alternative fuels are set to meet their 2010 targets this year. Two of the largest states in the country have already set goals for 20% renewable power; Califonia by 2010 and New Jersey by 2020. Other states are setting similar goals, and there is a lot of

There's a lot of popular energy and money behind these projects in the US. In other places of the world, I'm not as sure, but here it's very strong and building momentum with each passing month of $60/barrel oil or $2.50 gas.

The difference with the Internet is, it has no visible infrastructure. The NIMBYs would have halted railway-mania had it taken place today.

That's true, but both are still stories of speculative mania turned in to long-term growth. The same is probably going to be true with alternative energy, although it may not even be speculative if oil prices remain high.

Also, many projects like ethanol and biodiesel plants have pretty much no NIMBY protests from residents of the towns they are built in since the jobs are welcome as is the economic boost to the local community; it's hard to find people opposed to it in a lot of places, with the Midwest a particular stronghold for the ethanol push.

And again, in the 1990s at least people were aware of the benefits of telecommunication. I don't see much public knowledge of the energy situtation. If you don't even know a problem exists, it will own you every time.

People see the energy situation when they get their electricity bills or pay $40to fill up at the gas station, and know that they will save money if they find alternatives to the stuff they're using. The Internet and mass media are also great sources of information; not always the best, but people are still waking up to the problem.

Some states are also taking the initiative to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and are pushing stricter efficiency standards; the Midwest Natural Gas Initiative is comprised of the eight Midwestern states who represent the bulk of farm production as well as the industrial states like Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana.

These states are also the most dependent on natural gas, so a push for efficency will pay off big for them and two of the eight states have already committed to the reduction program this year.

This might interest people:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

This might be of interest to anyone living in the UK, the guy writing seems pretty good.

UK Survival in the 21st Century (http://www.after-oil.co.uk/)

He concludes by suggesting a worst case and a best case scenario:

Scenario 1

All significant oil and gas reserves are exhausted or have dwindled to an uneconomical level except for those of the Middle East. The USA managed to find some of its needs in the Gulf of Mexico and North Alaska, but these provided only a moderate amount and are now exhausted.

In South America weak governments failed due to the increase in conflict between them and the drug cartels and revolutionary forces. US troops moved in to maintain the running of the oil fields and refineries and were constantly under attack from armed groups so that when the reserves depleted they withdrew, leaving a devastated continent.

In order to revive its post-Communist economy Russia emptied its reserves, but retains its remaining modest oil and gas reserves for its own use, returning to a pre-revolution peasant society.

Following a revolution, and a failed counter-revolution supported by the USA, Islamic fundamentalists now govern Saudi Arabia, bringing Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain into their hegemony. Only Oman, with British support, remains as a Sultanate. Iraq, after Saddam Hussein, retained a secular government which emptied its oil reserves to fund its economic recovery.

This result of this turmoil was that the only remaining oil reserves of any significance were denied to the West and were in any case needed for water de-salination to support life and irrigation of crops in areas of desert.

The USA seeing its life-style threatened had reacted militarily to these events, but this only succeeded in having its oil supplies from the Middle East cut off. This meant that it exhausted its remaining natural gas reserves for production of liquid fuels and petrochemicals feedstock. By mining its 25% of the world’s coal reserves, the USA supplies its heavy industry with energy, provides for domestic gas by coal gasification and manufactures liquid fuels for transport by coal liquefaction.

Moreover, using the extensive wind farms and with its technological ability it successfully implemented alternative energy programmes which are reserved for essential services like water, sewage and hospitals. The dominant communications industry allowed the creation of a more distributed mode of working and abandonment of massive office complexes.

On the other hand Europe, weakened by failing economies and massive immigration from an increasingly turbulent Third World is in turmoil having failed to implement sufficient alternative technologies and unable to secure adequate oil from the Middle East and gas supplies from Russia.

Britain failed to conserve its oil and gas reserves by exploiting them for short-term profit and tax revenues, using them up by 2010 and due to the high cost and shortage of imported oil and gas, stagnated. The shortage of liquid fuels led to the collapse of the motor and aircraft manufacturing industries. Capital which could have been employed to create an alternative energy sector was wasted on expanding airport terminals and runways which now lie idle. The 20th Century trend towards urbanisation has reversed and food supplies are derived from labour-intensive smallholdings as in medieval times. Unfortunately much productive agricultural land was taken for housing, more being needed than before because oil-based fertilisers are unavailable to give a high yield. Horses previously used for recreation were turned to practical use and are employed in agriculture and for the transport of goods. As in the 1930’s high unemployment led to the return of an allotment society with home-grown food aiding survival.

However, communications developed, so that it is quite normal to see a horse and cart with the carter discussing customer requirements with a mobile telephone.

Scenario 2

By adopting many of the proposals of this manual, Britain managed to reduce its energy requirements to around 25% of the 2000 level at which alternative energy sources and a restored coal industry manage to cope. The biggest contributor to savings was the revolution in communications and home-working and restrictions on travel.

Heavy energy users such as motor manufacturers are few and road transport provides only for the needs of essential services such as health care and food production. In that manufacturing survives to provide essential supplies, it is limited to that employing energy-lean methods, as energy dominates company costs.

Domestic air travel is largely replaced by railways and tramways, being totally electrified and run efficiently from wind- and tidal-power generated electricity. Under-utilised motorways provided suitable routes for additional railway tracks and tramways. Air travel is restricted to essential and intra-governmental business as alternative sources of jet fuel failed to be produced in sufficient quantities.

The motive power needs of agriculture is met from crops supporting the manufacture of bio-diesel and food is distributed as rail freight on re-opened branch lines. Because manufacture of plastics was curtailed by a lack of oil-based chemicals, only partly substituted by coal-derived alternatives, more food is produced locally as processed food cannot be packaged so readily. This has eased the re-cycling and disposal problem originating in the 20th Century and land-fill sites are mostly closed.

Lifestyles have improved with better health from fewer accidents on empty roads, participation in healthy sports and local activities. Drug-taking was finally brought under control not by policing but by the reduction in international traffic which curtailed supply opportunities. Measures taken to make the provision of the health services dependent on the individual’s self care have made smoking and other life-threatening activities a rare phenomenon.

The development of a vast communication infrastructure meant that intellectual and cultural life has been enriched but not in mass attendance events. For example, football supporters view matches staged on pitches equipped as inter-active audio-visual centres with seating reserved for sport officials, press and TV, radio and internet commentators.

Postal services have been replaced by electronic mail and due to the lack of fuel for vans, the mail order business reverted to the old system of a rail-served parcels service. Domestic goods are largely made by local craft industries from sustainable materials.

Unemployment is not the problem it might have foreseen to be, as the lack of energy to drive machinery, means that many functions have reverted to manual labour. For instance, trench-digging and excavation are performed by pick and shovel instead of by mini-excavator, which cannot be fuelled. Some lorry drivers have converted to train and tram drivers.

Scenario 2 is similar in many ways to Scenario 1, but the difference is that the train and tram infrastructure is completed and sustainable alternative energy sources make their appropriate and limited contribution. The public was prepared for the demise of road and air transport by enlightened government. Instead of a bewildering and drastic breakdown of the economic life at the beginning of the century, the changes were anticipated and the transition to a different lifestyle was calm and considered.

That's worryingly soon. I'll be finishing sixth-form college and hopefully going to university in a year or twos time. I was going to do an arts degree but I'm good enough to do a degree in mathematics if I had to. Do you think the situation will deteriorate to the extent that anything but a technical qualification will be worthless?

Randomlittleisland, although some people are very pessermistic, I believe that problems caused by peak oil and global warming will only slow economic development in the future, not cause it to go backwards. So I wouldn't suggest baseing your choice of degree on the assumption that civilization is going to collaspe. However, if you do want to work to help ensure that civilization doesn't collaspe, then studing maths or science might be helpful.

You might also want to talk to your parents about the oil shocks of the 70's or maybe to someone who lived through the war. I think it may help put things in perspective. Remember peak oil may not occur for over a decade and will probably involve declines in production of less than 2% per year.

Randomlittleisland, although some people are very pessermistic, I believe that problems caused by peak oil and global warming will only slow economic development in the future, not cause it to go backwards. So I wouldn't suggest baseing your choice of degree on the assumption that civilization is going to collaspe. However, if you do want to work to help ensure that civilization doesn't collaspe, then studing maths or science might be helpful.

You might also want to talk to your parents about the oil shocks of the 70's or maybe to someone who lived through the war. I think it may help put things in perspective. Remember peak oil may not occur for over a decade and will probably involve declines in production of less than 2% per year.

Thanks for the advice, I'm still not sure what I'm going to study but I think you're right in saying I don't need to base it around peak oil.